Elements Of National Power

National power can be equated with the entirety of a state’s

effectiveness in international politics. The content of National power
relies on the combination of so many elements and relative factors
that it is very difficult to find out any accurate and final list at any
given period of time. Despite this difficulty there has been some
agreement about certain elements of national power and even about
their classification into stable and unstable, tangible and intangible,
human and non-human etc. More possession of these elements do
not determine a nation’s power hence they should not be termed as
the determinants of power as many scholars call them. What
determines power is the proper and efficient utilization of these
elements. At best they can be called as elements or factors or
components of national power.

Elements Of National Power:

Before discussing these elements in detail one should consider and
assume certain facts regarding them First, all elements are
interrelated and interdependent Second these cannot be measured
with a high degree of accuracy. These can simply be estimated.
Third even a precise estimate of these elements is not always
possible as they are undergoing constant structural and relative
changes due to natural and technological reasons. Fourth, national
power is never based on any single factor, but on a combination of
all these elements under a set of circumstances. Fifth these can be
broadly classified on the basis of their nature such as stable and
unstable, tangible and intangible.

Noted authors of international relations have clarified these elements

differently. Morgenthau has divided them into two categories
permanent and changeable. Relatively stable elements are geography
and natural resources whereas elements subject to constant change
are military preparedness, population, national character and morale,
diplomacy and government 1 Organski classified them into natural
and social determinants.

The natural determinants are geography, natural resources and

population social determinants are economic development, political
structure and national morale.2 Carr gave three categories : military
power, economic power and power over opinion.3 Mahendra
Kumar broadly divided them into three categories: natural, social
and ideational. First covers the elements of geography, resources and
population, while the second includes economic development,
political structure and national morale. The third category consists of
ideals, intelligence and wisdom of leadership.4 Palmer and
Perkins divided them into tangible and intangible. Geography, raw
material, natural resources and population are tangible whereas
morale and ideology are intangible.5 Many other scholars have also
preferred to classify them into tangible and intangible elements.
These scholars are Lerche and Said 6 Coulombs and Wolfe 7, Adi
H. Doctor 8, Anam Jaitly 9 etc.

But in the following paragraphs these elements will be

comprehensively divided into five categories These are:

I. Natural Elements. Geography, natural resources and population.

II. Scientific and Technological Elements. Technology and

industrial capacity, agricultural capacity and military strength.

III. Political Elements. Type of government, bureaucratic

organization and efficiency, wisdom of leadership and quality of
diplomacy.

IV. Social and Ideological Elements. Ideologies, national morale,

national character, social structure and social cohesiveness.
V. External and other Elements. Reputation and image, foreign
support, international strategic position and intelligence. The above
elements are examined in detail as below.

Natural Elements:
They are so called because they are endowed by nature and not man
made. These elements are:

1. Geography:
Since time immemorial the most stable element upon which a
nation’s power depends is geography. Geographical factors such as
climate, topography, location and size influence the power potential
of a nation. Climate for example acts as one of the determinants of
the culture and economy of a country. If the climate is good, there
would be a better work culture leading to more productivity. Great
powers of modern times have been situated in those regions blessed
with a temperate climate. Topography plays an important role in the
defense of nations. Topographical features such as mountains,
valleys, rivers may determine natural boundaries between nations
and set limits to their natural expansion. Mountains
like Himalayas the Alps and the Pyrenees and rivers like the Rhine
the Rio Grande and Yale served as guards on the boundaries
between nations. The Chinese aggression on India in 1962 shattered
this belief and necessitated a rethinking on the question whether
topography is important as natural guard or not. Location determines
the extent of a country’s vulnerability to invasion. It is a major
determinant of whether a country is a sea-power or a land-power.

The achievements of England and Japan on the seas have been

owing to the fact of their being islands. Land locked countries like
Austria, Hungary, Nepal, Bhutan etc, are at a disadvantage when
compared to states having outlets to sea. States that are located far
away from the fiction zones of power can pursue an independent or
neutral policy in world affairs, but the same is not true with those
states who are close to the epic center of world politics. Size is yet
another natural and tangible factor of power though it is the most
deceptive of the physical foundations of power. A large territory if
hospitable and fertile can accommodate more people and give more
natural resources. In the past, the vast size of the territory of a state
was of great help to its security. It was difficult for the enemy to win
and occupy a large territory. But size matters very little now a days
Japan for instance even though comparatively small defeated China
and Russia. Moreover, utility of larger territories has also diminished
due to the technological revolution and the invention of Inter
Continental Ballistic Missiles.

A new discipline has emerged that enables us to understand the

application of the knowledge of political geography to statecraft. It is
known as Geopolitics. It is the study of geography as it may
influence foreign policy and political phenomena.

2. Natural Resources:
Natural as well as quantifiable and stable element of power is natural
resources which include raw materials, agricultural products like
food and fiber, forests, minerals, waterfall, fertility of soil etc. It is
evident that the possession of resources such as coal, iron, uranium,
oil, rubber, bauxite, manganese, other ferrous and non ferrous
metals, non metallic minerals and natural gas is essential to
industrial and defense production in nation states. More recently, it
has been proved that the availability of petroleum at reasonable
prices is important to the good economic health of industrial nations.
The contemporary prosperity of many Arab countries is due to the
availability of plenty of oil there.

However, it may be said that the mere possession of natural

resources does not automatically generate power. Their proper
utilization through advanced technology is also essential. Secondly,
previously the rigid raw material theory of international politics was
very popular but now its popularity is on decline. Invention of
synthetics and other new industrial processes, development of
synthetics and the unexpectedly high capacity of embattled
populations to endure chronic shortages have all served to liberate
states from the more absolutes of the theory.10 Despite these
limitations natural resources and raw materials continue to-serve a
nation in its economic and military development.

3. Population:
It seems a large population is an asset for the state. But it is not
really so. For example, China with the largest population in the
world is not as powerful as the United States and the Soviet Union
are. On the other hand Israel, Japan and Germany are powerful
inspite of their small population. That is why quality of population is
as important as its quantity. From quantity three point of view it is a
tangible element whereas it is intangible qualitatively. Thus
population can serve both as an assert and as a liability. If the people
are well fed, educated and properly trained, they are a great source
of power. But if they are ignorant, poor and illiterate, they are a big
burden on the state. Many qualities of population, such as unity,
literacy, loyalty, character and Spirit of love, sacrifice and duty are
crucial for making a country powerful but they are difficult to
measure. A good population serves as good military personnel,
civilians, workers, producers and consumers.

Manpower according to Lerche and Said, is more useful notion for

purposes of national power. It is that part of the population available
for broadly defined foreign policy objectives. All individuals who
are politically useless, as well as those needed simply to keep the
society functional (such as food producers), must be subtracted from
the gross total. The remaining is the manpower quotient that, with
proper direction, leadership and administration, can be utilized to
contribute to I the defense, productive, administrative, diplomatic
and political strength of the state.11

Scientific and Technological Elements:

As stated above industrial capacity, agricultural capacity and
military capacity of a nation depend on the one hand on the
availability of natural resources and raw materials and on the other
hand on the scientific and technological development. Elements
related with scientific and technological advancement of a country
are as follows:

1. Industrial Capacity:
Technology may be said to be a nation’s capacity to convert the
endowed resources into actual power. It can be applied in the
economic and industrial sphere which means better machines and
better and abundant products. No nation in the present world can
become a great power unless it has the capacity to produce
tremendous quantities of goods and services. If a country does not
have the technology, industry and markets to process natural
resources efficiently, it is reduced to the position of a weak raw
material exporting state. On the contrary, a country with developed
technology but without natural resources is greatly dependent on the
importation of raw materials from other countries. For example,
many Western countries with the exception of the US are critically
dependent upon the supply of Middle East oil. They do not have any
firm control over its supply and price fluctuations. It can be safely
said that those countries which have both important raw materials
and developed technologies for processing are fully developed and
powerful countries.

Technology helps a nation to have stronger economy, stronger

industrial base, stronger system of transport and communication,
stronger military, greater capacity to win war and influence nations
during peace. Industrial capacity contributes towards the production
Of weapons that are required for modern warfare. It provides
international rewards in the form of consumer goods and in the
shape of markets for foreign goods. It enables a nation to persuade
other nations by providing technical and economic assistance in the
name of soft loans, aid, grants etc. Industrial capacity of a nation,
thus is a great source of wealth and power.
2. Agricultural Capacity:
Agriculture is a crucial component of national power. It is more
relevant for developing countries where agriculture tends to be the
major sector of national economy. In the words of Couloumbis and
Wolfe, “This is also a tangible element of power. Countries that can
feed themselves, especially over the course of a long war will be
relatively more powerful than countries that are not self
sufficient.”12 international trade of a developing country heavily
depends upon agricultural products and products manufactured with
agricultural content (e.g. jute, cloth and sugar) as these become
goods for export and these facilitate imports of machinery and raw
material for industrial sector. In India, agriculture products constitute
about fifty percent of the total . Indian exports while goods
manufactured with agricultural content constitute another twenty
percent of the total exports thus constituting nearly 70 per cent of the
total Indian exports.13

Thus India being an industrially less advanced country, relies greatly

on agriculture and allied products. Agriculture contributes about 35
percent of the national income and provides livelihood to about
three-fourth of the population. In 1950 India was faced with the food
problem and suffered from agricultural backwardness. For food it
was depending On Western nations and particularly US which
through PL 480 pressurized India off and on. But with the help of
modern technology India succeeded in Green Revolution and
became self-sufficient in food. With this its dependence on the US
for food ended and it became more self confident in diplomatic
activities. Scientific and technological methods can thus help in
increasing the agricultural capacity of a nation that further enhances
a nation’s power.

3. Military Strength:
Scientific and technological development is the sustaining factor for
the armed forces without which the military strength cannot be
dependable and self-reliant. Indigenous capacity to produce different
kinds of modern and sophisticated weapons is necessary, otherwise
the nation cannot sustain prolonged warfare. Consequently,
notwithstanding their technological backwardness, many countries
have acquired military strength by buying weapons from the
advanced countries which has contributed to their military might. In
the beginning, most of the states increase their strength in this way
and later on build up their technological capability for defense
production and forces.

Military strength is relevant both in war and peace. No one can win a
war without a strong military base. In peace time also, diplomacy is
significantly affected by the leverages that rivals wield owing to
their respective military might. Military strength involves two main
things-armed forces and weapons. To analyze their role in national
power one has to take into consideration their size and quantity, their
quality and technological sophistication, their mobility and
deployment, their leadership and morale.

The size and number of armed forces are of great importance. Even
the age of space battles and push-button warfare has not undermined
the general importance of number. Therefore, a country with a large
size of defense forces will be always relatively in a better position.
Equally important is the weapons and equipment’s supplied to them.
A state with a small armed force, but armed with sophisticated
weapons and quality equipment can easily defeat another state which
has a much larger armed force using old weapons. Thus the quality
of the army and arms ammunition is also very crucial along with
their quantity. The quality of forces depends on the nature of the
training, the physical endurance and the morale of troops. Next is the
question of mobility and deployment. It stands for the ability of a
state to deploy its armed might in locations inside and outside its
territory.

The chief indicator of mobility is a state’s ability to transport and

effectively support military Operations on land, sea and air. Military
leadership also plays a great role in the actual military Operations
during a war. By their skill military commanders can jolt a superior
enemy and term the defeat of his side into victory. Morale of forces
i.e. their willingness to sacrifice for nation is no less a factor in
contributing to military strength. The military alliances and bases
also contribute important aspect of the military element. A state with
a number of such alliances and bases is potentially stronger. Lastly,
military component of national power is dependent upon the
financial resources of nation as well as its technological, industrial
and economic development.

Political Elements:
Political elements consist of type of government, bureaucratic
efficiency, political leadership and quality of diplomacy. All these
are important parts of the political system of a state and contribute
towards its power. These are discussed as follows:

1. Type of Government:
States formulate and conduct their foreign policy through their
governments. If a governments foreign policy is unified, specific,
representative of the popular will, stable, and at the same time
flexible, it can do wonders for the nation, and its power
position. Government also regulates social discipline, which is based
on the coordination of all efforts in its community. Good rapport
between the government and people bring greater allegiance of
people towards the country. Such an allegiance is a prime factor in
the development of national power.

it is not easy to say which type of government is the most powerful.

The issue of relationship between type of government and national
power has not been resolved since Aristotle’s times. There are
various forms of government in the present world such as
communist, democratic, authoritarian etc. Past international relations
prove that both democratic and authoritarian types of governments
have been successful in effectively regulating the behavior of other
states, and, therefore, to that extent both of them have been powerful
nations. Authoritarian regimes can make swift and flexible foreign
policy decision as their decision makers are few and relatively
Unaccountable. But we should think whether quick decisions by
unaccountable decision makers are necessarily wise decisions.

The features of checks and balances of democratic governments

subject decisions to greater scrutiny and presumably guard against
whimsical and hasty decisions. The yardstick to measure superiority
of a type of government can be its efficiency to achieve set national
goals and ability to mobilize people’s support. Democratic and
constitutional government is based on consensus of fundamentals, it
is likely to operate with a sustained popular support. In this way, it
will be in a better position to impose greater discipline and persuade
people to make sacrifices for achieving national objectives and
national growth.

2. Bureaucratic Efficiency:
If the bureaucracy is impartial, honest, clean and efficient, it will
generate more power for a nation. Corruption and inefficiency will
always cost a nation much both in peace and war. In peace, it will
stall development and progress. in war, it will set at naught all
coordinated efforts and prepare the ground for eventual capitulation.
Rich, well-armed, and even wisely governed countries cannot work
effectively unless they have efficient bureaucracies with which to
execute their policies. There are four views regarding the proper
role, method of operation, and adequate functioning of
bureaucracies. First, communist states believe in large-
scale bureaucratization not only in political but also in economic and
social sectors. But by now it has been realized that over
bureaucratization in communist countries has proved
counterproductive.

Second, democratic competitive countries seek to encourage private

initiative and limit the role of governmental bureaucracies to
defense, taxation, and other regulatory functions. Third, there are
those who argue for the complete detachment of politics from
professional bureaucracies. Fourth, few people are interested to have
political control over the bureaucracies, plug leaks, and ensure that
political decisions are carried out faithfully by the professional
bureaucrats. Each of these theories has its own advantages and
disadvantages, we do not intend discussing them here. But it can be
realized that to assess the exact impact of a given bureaucratic theory
upon the power of a state is an uphill task.

3. Leadership:
Leadership is of great significance to any analysis of national power
because it is leadership that utilizes the national resources to build up
power. Morale of the people also revolves around leadership. There
can be no integrated technology sans leadership. It is important for
many reasons. First, leadership utilizes the other components of
national power like geography, resources, population, industrial
capacity, technology etc, and this it does with the qualities that it
possesses. Second, it coordinates other elements of national power.
Third, it allocates resources between military and civilian
programmes. Fourth, it decides the nature of relations with other
states and declares war and peace. Decisions and actions of leaders
have a direct bearing on the power of the state. Couloumbis and
Wolfe rightly observe: Undoubtedly, greatness or incompetence,
wisdom or irrationality, effectiveness or impotence in leadership
considerably affects the power that a country has. Leaders such as
Napoleon, Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Mao, Gandhi,
Kennedy, de Gaulle, Khrushchev, and Nixon have made a deep
impact on world history.14 An able leadership serves as a source of
great inspiration to a people. Such an inspiration is crucial both in
the realization of national development programmes and in the
assumption of initiative in foreign affairs.

4. Quality of Diplomacy:
Another significant component of national power is the quality of
diplomacy. It embraces all the power resources of a nation to bear in
such a way as to make the most of them, rattling. The sabre here,
offering rewards there, bringing forth arguments at another point
timing actions and concessions in such a way as to persuade one’s
enemies and allies to act as one wishes them to act of all the
elements that play role in gaining national power, the most
important, though unstable and intangible, is the quality of
diplomacy. All other elements are like raw materials, and the state
having them may be a potentially great power. However, it becomes
an actual power when it follows an effective foreign policy towards
this end through diplomacy According to Morgenthau, “The
conduct of a nation’s foreign affairs by its diplomats is for national
power in peace what military strategy and tactics by its military
leaders are for national power in war”15 If morale is the soul of
national power then diplomacy is its brain.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, France and Britain were proud of
their diplomatic skill. It was the art of diplomacy that gave to Britain
the relative consistency of power from Henry VIII to the First World
War. During inter-war period the USA was politically very strong
but played insignificant part in world politics as her diplomacy was
weak. It was only after the Second World War that the US pursued a
great power policy, shouldered commensurate economic, military
and diplomatic responsibilities and transformed the potential into
actual. There are also some diplomats in the third world countries
who have earned a name for their negotiating ability.

New factors such as the rapid increase in the means of transport and
communication, increasing appreciation of the importance of public
opinion and the practice of Open diplomacy have greatly affected
the character of diplomacy and contributed towards its decline. But it
is not fully correct Though it may have suffered a few setbacks yet a
high quality of diplomacy still plays an indispensable role for the
power of a nation. it is the only peaceful alternative to protect and
accomplish national interests. On the last one must remember that a
high quality diplomacy must also possess the element of
consistency.
Social and Ideological Elements:
Social environment of a nation influences its power making. These
elements are concerned with society’s ideals, ideas, attitudes,
sentiments, slogans, morale, character, social traditions and customs.
All these are parts of the social system and structure of a nation.
These are explained as below:

1. Ideology:
Ideology has remained a very vital aspect in the power of a nation
especially in the twentieth century. An ideology is a body of ideas
and beliefs concerning certain values and usually suggesting a
certain political and economic order in order to accomplish these
values. Richard Snyder and Hubert Wilson presents a comprehensive
definition of ideology. In their own words, it is a cluster of ideas
about life, society or government, which originate in most cases as
consciously advocated or dogmatically asserted social, political or
religious slogans or battle cries , which become the characteristic
beliefs or dogmas of a particular group, party or
nationality 16 Ideologies can be of different types-social, political,
economic, religious, racial and so on.

Morgenthau has given three main types :

(i) ideologies of status quo.

(ii) ideology of imperialism.

(iii) ambiguous ideologies (e.g: self-determination).

Other important ideologies of the twentieth century are: liberalism,

constitutionalism, Nazism, fascism, communism, socialism,
nationalism, internationalism etc.

Experience reveals that in the past ideologies have provided a

tremendous philosophical, psychological and moral power for the
policies and program mes of men. They have gradually been a
guiding force for policy goals and activities of nations. Often nation
have utilized ideologies as a source of moral justification for the
pursuit of their policy goals. As an element of national power, these
can boost people’s morale. An ideology if it is followed by a
majority of citizens or is indoctrinated into them can act as a
powerful factor making for unity and power. It can be used either to
reconcile man to his conditions or to stimulate him to improve them.
Ideology is thus a significant element strengthening the power-base
of a state as also it foreign policy.

Ideologies have their own merits as well as demerits. They give

strength to worthy causes, unity to nation and a sense of common
interest to peoples in many parts of the world. The objective of
human brotherhood and world peace can be realized by ideological
motivation. 17 On the other hand, experience demonstrates a good
part of the evils and miseries characterizing international relations is
brought into existence by ideologies as initiators and determinants of
nation’s policies and efforts. Ideologies sometime act as part of
national egos and lead various nations into confrontation and wars.
Different nations pursuing conflicting ideologies have tended to add
to the tensions of the modern world particularly before and after the
Second World War. The task of peace-makers is generally made
difficult by the opposing ideologies.

The impact of ideology on international relations is fastly

diminishing especially after the advent
of Gorbachevian phenomenon and the subsequent collapse of
communism in the Soviet Union and East Europe. It belongs now to
the past as the fire of ideology once burning in Europe seems to have
extinguished as new ideas and feelings are being accepted to suit the
changing times. Ideology in fact, is not the end for which the states
resort to war, instead an instrument for concealing the interests of
the states. It is either used to attract people and gain their support or
convince them with the superiority of the state’s ideals. In this sense
it is still relevant as an element of national power.
2. National Morale:
National Morale and national character are the historical
psychological sociological element of national power. These are
unstable, intangible and cannot be measured easily. Lerche and
Said used this term “to describe the mass state of mind in action,
with particular reference to the extent to which the society feels itself
committed to the government’s policy “18 In the words
of Morgenthau, “National morale is the degree of determination
with which a nation supports the foreign policies of its government
in peace or war. It permeates all activities of a nation, its agricultural
and industrial production as well as its military establishment and
diplomatic service. In the form of public opinion, it provides an
intangible factor without whose support no government, democratic
or autocratic, is able to pursue its policies with full effectiveness, if it
is able to pursue them at all.”19

Palmer and Perkins define it as a thing of the spirit made up of

loyalty, courage, faith, the impulse to the preservation of personality
and dignity. It can make men and women work harder, sacrifice
more, and fight harder.20 Mohendra Kumar observes that
willingness to sacrifice is the core of national morale of the armed
forces as well as the people at large. In his own words, the sum total
of the individual qualities of men in a nation in the form of their
willingness to put the nation’s welfare above their own personal
welfare.21 A high national morale or willingness to sacrifice
contributes towards the building of national power in peacetime, in
national crisis and in wars. It has a direct impact on the vigor and
human dynamics with which government mobilize and utilize the
other tangible elements of power.

National morale is significantly influenced by national character and

the cultural background of the individuals. For instance, the German
character can be said to impart efficiency and thoroughness to the
morale of German soldiers the Russian character provided
doggedness and endurance to the morale of Russian soldiers while
the American character gave inventiveness and resourcefulness to
the morale of American soldiers. The morale of an advanced nation
is likely to be higher than the morale of a background nation due to
the difference of cultural background.

National morale is never permanent and static. It changes with time

and conditions. Sometime, there comes a point when it breaks.
Generation and maintenance of morale often depend upon
technological advance, the development of the means of transport
and communication, the flow of information and ideas and the
exposure of the people to them and so on. It can also be stimulated
by the techniques of propaganda and qualities of leadership.

3. National Character:
National character is the trait of people towards all the walks of
national life. It is the outcome of evolutionary process and the
attitude of the previous generations which is transmitted to the next
generations. Each nation has a distinct character. It is also a product
of a specific social environment. National character determine the
attitude of a people to international trends and events, as well as the
resolution with which they will back up foreign policy in peace or in
war. The national character consist of intellectual and moral qualities
of the people which leave their imprint on a nation’s foreign
policy. Nicolson rightly observed national policy is colored and even
governed by national character and I would say that unless we
understand that character we cannot understand the policy.22

The people of a nation, thus, have some common traits and features
with which the sociologists generally identify them. As we generally
perceive Chinese in terms of cosmic unchangeability, of the
Germans in terms of thoroughness and discipline of the Russians in
terms of relentless persistence and tenacity, of the English in terms
of undogmatic common sense of the Americans in terms of
pragmatism and informality, of all Latins in terms of esthetic instinct
and volatility and the Indians in terms of detachment on the verge of
indifference.

The relationship between national morale and character is positive

but at the same time ambiguous. Jointly, both of them demonstrate
the national will to further the national cause in a particular situation
or time. As an element of national power, national character is
broader than morale. Their relationship can be summed up in the
words of Palmer and Perkins: National character may be thought
of as climate, morale as weather.23

4. Social System and Cohesiveness:

This social element is also unstable as well as intangible. If the
society is integrated and coordinated then it will be capable of
unified effort that will further consolidate its power. On the other
hand if it is disintegrated and suffers from internal dissensions it will
dilute nation’s power and prestige. Lerche rightly observes: “that
social system is best for power purposes which is the most
homogeneous and united behind the political leadership of the
country and which embodies the minimum amount of stress and
strain.”24 A society stricken with communal tension, rural urban
tension, or with dissatisfied minorities, will have a low morale and
will adversely affect the power status of the nation. Many scholars
believe that internally unified nations are strong whereas divided
ones are weak.

The reasons for disunity or unity can vary from ethnic, linguistic,
racial, and religious diversity all the way to economic, political,
ideological and foreign-inspired divisions. Some plausible indicators
of disunity are terrorism, number of political prisoners, riots,
demonstrations, paralyzing strikes, media censorship, insurgency,
and even civil war.25 The most recent example of this factor is the
Soviet Union which has been a victim of internal tensions, disunity
and ethnic problem. All these factors have adversely affected its
power position in the world. India too has been riddled with
communal tensions, terrorism, casteism, riots, strikes, violence for
the last many years. That stood in its way to become a powerful
nation.

5. Accidents:
Sometimes accidents and unforeseen events also put spoke in the
wheel of power. For instance, “the sudden death of a great leader, an
earthquake, a famine, an epidemic of a dread disease such as the
plague, a misunderstanding or a breakdown in communication
during a crisis, and many other unforeseen events may deeply affect
the power relationship of nation-states. Since accidents cannot be
predicted in any other but aggregate statistical sense, they remain at
the summit of the pyramid of intangibility.”26 African countries
ravaged by drought and cyclone prone Bangladesh cannot think of
becoming powerful.

External Elements:
Most of the political scientists have laid stress on different internal
factors discussed above, ignoring external elements completely.
These external factors are in no way less significant than the internal
ones in determining a nation’s power. Couloumbis and
Wolfe,27 Lerche and Said,28 have, however, discussed the same in
their works.

1. Image and Reputation:

If a state has a favorable image, its voice would be heard at the
international level. For example, India under Nehru had a good
image albeit its backwardness and military weakness. It enjoyed a
good prestige-owing to Gandhian heritage, policy of non-alignment
and Nehru’s dynamic leadership. Both the super-powers tried to
befriend it. Many third world countries sought its guidance on
important international issues. After Nehru, there was some setback
to this image.

Similarly reputation of a state also matters. If some state has the

reputation of being a good fighter, the rival would think hundred
times before attacking it. Reputation acts as a deterrent and enables a
state to achieve some power position. In various wars Israel has
subdued Arabs and won the reputation of a tough fighter. This
reputation deters potential Arab invaders and is a strong diplomatic
card for Israel vis-a-vis Arabs. Couloumbis and Wolfe rightly say,
“Power, therefore, should be evaluated not only in terms of each
country’s ability and willingness to use its capabilities when
challenged, but also in terms of its reputation for action in response
to previous challenges”.29

2. Foreign Support and Dependency:

Another element which is not being touched upon by scholars is
foreign support and dependency. This factor comprises of
international connections such as alliances, foreign economic and
military aid, the leasing or granting of strategic bases to the great
powers, and participation in regional and universal international
organization and action. To overlook these aspects would leave us
measuring the power of Syria and Israel, for example, without
considering Soviet and American aid and commitments to these two
countries. Too much support from outside render a country totally
dependent. When this happens, the sovereignty and strategic
flexibility of the dependent nation-state vis-a~vis its supporter
become seriously limited in this way, foreign support and
dependency remains a crucial, although intangible element.

3. International Strategic Position:

If the state apprehends great: and constant danger, it will naturally
channelize its available power to defend its territory leaving a
limited role tor the world sin to. Any revision in a state’s assessment
of the dangers it faces automatically affects its power in other
spheres. An estimation that the threat has diminished enables the
state for more free action elsewhere if the threat is colossal, adequate
responsive action requires contraction of activity at other
points. Lerche and Said aptly remarked, ”In a familiar and
paradoxical way, the very objectives a state selects for itself, and the
way it interprets the situation in which it must operate, have a major
influence on its capability to achieve those objectives and to function
in the situation. A state’s international strategic position is to a large
measure determined by itself a state is to a great extent the architect
of its own capability.” 30

4. Intelligence:
Intelligence in this context implies complete knowledge of the
strength and weakness of external foes and friends. Different nations
employ various secret agencies and spies to obtain this
knowledge. Sherman Kent explains, the idea is to produce “the
kind of knowledge our states must possess regarding other states in
order to assure itself that its cause will not suffer nor its undertakings
fail because its statesmen and soldiers plan and act in
ignorance.”31 This knowledge and information serves the purpose of
power. Such an information can be useful both in times of war and
peace. in war advance information about the strength and strategy of
the enemy greatly helps to effectively deal with the eventuality.
During peace time, prior knowledge about the other party’s plus and
minus points enables a country to extract maximum benefit to itself
on the bargaining table. Keeping in view the significance of this
element different nations have their own network of intelligence
agencies and spies such as USA’s CIA, USSR’s KGB and India’s
RAW.

Measurement Of National Power:

Notional Power cannot be measured or weighed physically in terms
of meters, liters, kilograms, tonnes etc. No measuring tape or
balancing scale or barometer has since been invented to measure the
power of one nation vis~a-vis another. The problem of measurement
lies both in the subjective limitations of the analysis and in the very
characteristics of the elements themselves. The subjectivity, values
and prejudices of the analyst may distort the true picture of the
national power. Besides the very nature of the elements is such as to
make this measurement all the more difficult. Some of these
elements are stable while others are unstable some are tangible (e.g:
Geography, population, natural resources, industrial capacity,
military strength) whereas others are intangible (such as national)
morale, national character, social cohesiveness, intelligence,
reputation etc. It has been admitted by the noted scholars of
international relations such as Morgenthau, Palmer and Perkins,
Hartmann, Organksld etc. that national power cannot be measured
precisely owing to reasons mentioned below.

Relativity of Power:
An evaluator may ignore the relativity of power by erecting the
power of one particular nation into an absolute. France after 1919
and Germany after 1936 were considered as absolute power, but
subsequent history established the falsity of this Opinion. Power is
never absolute. In international relations power is relative and
essentially relational as it cannot be measured in a vacuum. A state is
more or less powerful relative to some other state. Palmer and
Perkins elaborate, “Fifty divisions, three hundred war vessels, two
thousand planes all these may represent overwhelming might against
one opponent and miserable inadequacy against another.”32 its
relativity has been further increased by the development of nuclear
energy and emergence of the power of the weak. in the
contemporary world of nuclear deterrence, the national power is to
be assessed not in terms of the capacity of first attack but in terms of
the capacity of surviving retaliatory strength. The power of the weak
is linked with the emergence of new nations that restrict the
dominant nature of power and makes it further relative.33

Changing Nature of Power:

Morgenthau points out, The second typical error impairing the
evaluation of national power singles out a particular power factor or
power relation, basing the estimate upon the assumption that this
factor or relation is immune to change.34 While evaluating power,
one must bear in mind the changing nature of power. One cannot
take for granted the permanency of a certain factor that has played a
decisive role in the past, thus neglecting the dynamic change. The
Soviet Union was treated as inherently powerless between 1917 and
1943, but the epic of Stalingrad repudiated this version. Similarly at
the beginning of the First World War Britain was the mistress of the
sea but at the close of the Second World War she was reduced to a
second grade power, as the significance of sea war-fare had
diminished.

Some geopoliticians have wrongly erected the element of geography

into an absolute. Take the example of Heartland theory which is now
exploded. Thus for many reasons, a nation’s political and economic
status and power may change basically over a period of time. Rise
and fall of nations is a common phenomenon in history.

Single Factor Determinism:

The third typical error according to Morgenthau, in measuring the
national power is giving to one single factor a decisive role to the
disregard of all other factors Sometimes an evaluation is made on the
basis of geopolitics or nationalism or militarism.35 One should
avoid any single factor determinism. No one factor is an absolute.
One state may have a very good geographical features and other may
have a strong military but is lacking in other elements. If the
assessment of both these states are based on single factor i.e
geography and military respectively then this assessment is going to
be proved wrong and erroneous.

Moreover, all factors are not of equal importance. In the Opinion

of Organski, national morale, resources and geography are of
comparatively less importance than population, political structure
and economic productivity. Simple possession or rich resources is
not a major element in the absence of high rate of economic
productivity. India can be cited an example of this. Similarly, with
the development of nuclear weapons and inventions of different
kinds of means of delivery geography’s importance has declined.
Modernization of political Structure and industrialization can
enhance power. By regular economic development, efficiency of
government and by joining political alliances a nation can gain more
power.

The Estimate and Reality of Power:

The gap between the estimate and reality of power also makes
measurement difficult. The possibility of the underestimation or
overestimation of one’s power and that of the opponent is always
there. It is correct that a nation’s power relies not merely on its
genuine ability to influence the behavior of other states but also on
the estimation of its ability as also on the estimation of its power as
made by other nations. For instance, during 1930 Italy was not so
great as was generally estimated and French fear of Germany was
based on overestimation. Thus, the underestimation or
overestimation of one’s own self or of others reveals lack of an exact
evaluation of power. Underestimation of one’s own power and
overestimation of that of others result in policies of peace and status
quo, while overestimation of one’s own power and underestimation
of that of others pave the way for policies of war and change.

Actual and Potential Power:

While calculating power an observer must be aware of the actual and
potential power of the states. The potential power of the state is the
possibility it possesses of developing into a powerful state on the
basis of natural resources, etc. Evaluation of potential power helps in
chalking out long-term plans involving commitment of power. The
actual power is power that a state really has. The measurement of
this power is useful in forecasting short-term developments and in
making immediate commitments of power.

If a state has adequate immediate power to press for an advantageous

decision, it will do so, before the rival can mobilize his greater
potential superiority. Germany did this twice. But in 1917 and 1941
she miscalculated the swiftness with which the USA could arm
herself. It is evident that a state with lesser potential but which keeps
a larger part of it in readiness all the time may prove effective and be
able to supply greater pressure in a given situation, than a state with
a larger potential but which it is reluctant or unable to utilize.

The organization and military elements are very significant in

transforming a potential power into an actual power. Without proper
organization and leadership and military equipment, the national
power may not develop at all and express itself in any positive
manner.

Specificity of Power:
The problem of a proper evaluation of power is intimately linked
with the problem of the credibility of power. A threat which is not
credible has no meaning in the game of power. But the problem of
the credibility of power is further linked with the specificity of
power. That is to say, that no particular type of power can be such
that it can be applied in any form and in any condition. Even the
huge stock of nuclear weapons will be meaningless deterrent if the
rival thinks that these weapons will not be used, while less
destructive weapons can be proved fearful for opponent if it
considers that those weapons will be used against it. If all the above
errors are sought to be avoided assiduously then national power
cannot be measured exactly. At the best it remains a matter of
conjecture.

Limitations On National Power:

Howsoever powerful a county may be and be in possess on of as
many elements of power as possible, it ca of arbitrary and
authoritative manner at int National power operates within certain
Limitations. These act as restrictions on state action. The major
limitations of national power are as follows:
International Morality:
Though many thinkers likes Machiavelli and Hobbes deny the
existence of international morality, yet many others, accept the
existence of international morality. Men do profess to follow certain
moral rules whether they act as individuals or as statesmen and
seldom make any distinction at least in principle about the nature of
these binding rules. But in reality they do draw such distinction. For
example, when they Work as statesmen they do claim exemption for
certain acts on ground of necessity which they would never justify in
their private capacity. Therefore, in fact, there exists a contradiction
between moral command and the requirement of successful action.

Meaning. International morality or ethics is the combination of the

standards, norms and values which nation states and international
organizations think they should observe in their relations with each
other. These norms or values may originate from desires and
attitudes, from social customs and traditions they are regularly
influenced by the developments in the sphere of science and
technology. One of the most crucial and clearly understood item in
this code is the obligation not to harm others or-inflict unnecessary
suffering on other human beings except for some higher objective
which is held, rightly or wrongly, to justify a derogation from this
general obligation.37

Operation of International Morality:

Had the struggle for power taken independent course it would have
converted the world into the Hobbesian state of war and might
would have been the right In practice, moral norms operate in the
civilized world and in their presence power struggle cannot go
unbridled. To preserve society, in the words of Morgenthau, certain
moral precepts have been put forward which the statesmen and
diplomats ought of take to heart in order to make relations between
nations more peaceful and less anarchic, such as the keeping of
promises, trust in other words, fair dealing, respect for international
law, protection of minorities, repudiation of war as an instrument of
national policy.38

Morgenthau further Explains the ways through which international

morality operates to protect human life and to check the occurrence
of war. First, international morality protects human life in peace by
renouncing the policy of assassination of the leaders of the opponent
countries, technique of giving poison, treachery, etc. Such policies
may be still desirable and possible but morally these are rebuked and
difficult to execute. “Moral limitations of the same kind protect in
times of peace the lives not only of outstanding individuals but also
of large groups, even of whole nations whose destruction would be
both politically desirable and feasible.”39

Second, similar moral limitations Operate in times of war. They

protect civilians and those combatants who are unable or unwilling
to fight. Both statesmen and army leaders admit that, as only the
armed forces participate in combat activities, it is undesirable to
make civilian population major target of their attack If the army
commanders isolate this moral principle of not attacking civilian
population unnecessarily or beyond reasonable limits and indulge in
ruthless civilian killings, they have to face a condemnation at home
and abroad. Similarly morality prohibits that those who were no
longer engaged in actual warfare because of sickness, wounds,
disability, or because they have become prisoners of war should not
be harmed. Such a humanitarian approach towards the prisoners of
war and disabled soldiers was developed during the seventeenth and
the eighteenth centuries in Europe and culminated in adopting a
certain treaties in this respect by many states in the nineteenth and
the twentieth centuries.

The Geneva Convention of 1864, 1906, 1929 and 1949 as well as the
Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 laid down certain specific
conditions regarding the treatment of the sick and wounded soldiers
by the other side. Third and final, there is moral condemnation of
war in the present century. War as an instrument of foreign policy
has been repudiated on moral grounds and all nations are keen to
avoid it as far as possible. The eschewing of war itself has become
an aim of statecraft only in the last half century. The two Hague
Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, the League of Nations of
1919, the Briand-Kellogg Pact of 1928, the League of Nations, and
the United Nations in the present times all have the avoidance of war
itself as their final goal.

After Second World War also many powerful states avoided war
even at the huge cost of their political and military advantage. The
desire to eschew war outweighed all other considerations of national
policy. The attempts of all the great powers to confine the Korean
War to the Korean peninsula and thus prevent it from developing
into a third world war and the self-restraint practiced by all of them
during many international crises (e.g Cuba, Suez, Kuwait etc) since
the end of Second World War are striking example of a basic change
in the attitude toward war Morgenthau sums up “Thus, while the
moral limitations upon killing in times of peace remain intact, the
moral limitations upon killing in war have proved to be largely
ineffective.”40

Sanctions:
Moral precepts act as restraint Owing to the following reasons or
sanctions as explained by Frankel. The first is found in the sanctions
imposed for violating the internationally accepted moral standards of
conduct which is in social disapproval. All countries, however
powerful, are sensitive to the dangers of losing the reputation and
prestige of acting morally. All countries are expected to abide by the
generally accepted standards of conduct, and are fully aware of the
disrepute arising if they are not obeyed.

Since all political actions come under public scrutiny and is nearly
always morally evaluated, the moral principles frequently professed
as veil for selfish national policy assume a momentum of their own
in order to avoid the unwelcome reputation of hypocrisy and
duplicity, however insincere they may have been in their
protestations, statesmen usually find it more convenient to obey the
professed norms than to violate them. In other words, domestic as
well as world public opinion compel leaders to follow certain ethical
standards in their international dealings.

The Second sanction behind restraint can be found in the moral

sentiments and consciences of the statesmen or ruling elites I
themselves. Both Great Britain and the United States in the
nineteenth century enjoyed an unequaled moral opportunity by being
exceptionally secure moreover, international moral rules closely
approximated their domestic moral codes internalized by their
statesmen. These statesmen preferred to act morally rather than
otherwise, unless, of course, a really vital national interest appeared
to be at stake. Similarly, although to a lesser extent, it can be said
about statesmen in other times and places.

Finally, moral restraint operates much more effectively in the

relations among friends and allies than among rivals and enemies.
This can be explained by the principle of reciprocity good behavior
which is expected to be reciprocated is not only good in moral terms
but is also beneficial to all concerned.41

Thus international morality limits the use of power a country

possesses to achieve the desired goals. States do not pursue certain
ends and use certain means because of moral limitations. But as
Frankel says, “Even an extreme idealist would not assert that moral
restraints actually prevail over what states consider to be their vital
interest.”42

World Public Opinion:

The nations policies or activities directed to the pursuit of their
objectives can be influenced, modified, or even halted under the
pressure of world public opinion. No nation can generally dare to
use the power at its disposal to achieve selfish ends in violation of
the world public Opinion. But as a concept it is more elusive and
lacks analytical precision.

World public opinion was considered to be the force behind the

League of Nations. International law, the decision of the Permanent
Court of International Justice, the Briand-Kelloge Pact etc. were to
be executed through world public opinion. The great weapon we rely
upon is world public opinion and if we are wrong about it, then the
whole thing is wrong, 43 declared Lord Robert Cecil in the House of
Commons on July, 21,1919. Before the beginning of the Second
World War, Cordell Hull then American Secretary of State said that
“a public opinion the most potent of all forces of peace, is mo
strongly developing throughout the world.44 The United Nations is
an important instrument of the world public Opinion and vice versa.
The General Assembly of the United Nations is decorated to be the
Open conscience of the world. “45

Meaning:

In order to understand world public opinion we will first de fine the

term public opinion. According to Bryce, “This term is commonly
used to denote the aggregate of the views men held regarding
matters that affect or interest the community Thus understood, it is a
congeries of all sorts of discrepant lotions, beliefs, fancies,
prejudices, aspirations.”46 On the other hand, Lowell defines it by
saying that, “Public opinion tot re worthy of the name, to be the
proper motive force in democracy, must be really public. A majority
is not enough and humanity is not required, but the opinion must be
such that, while the minority may not share it, they feel bound, by
conviction and not by fear to accept it and if democracy is complete,
the submission of the minority must be given unstintingly.”47

In the words of Morgenthau, “World public opinion is obviously a

public opinion that transcends national boundaries and that
unites members of different nations in a consensus with regard to
artiest certain fundamental international issues. This consensus
makes itself felt in spontaneous reactions throughout the world
against whatever move on the chessboard of international politics is
disapproved by that consensus.”48 Whenever a state acts against the
mankind or do a wrong thing, humanity will react, regardless of
national affiliations, and at least try to mend it through spontaneous
sanctions upon the erring state. In this way, international society will
either compel it to abide by its standard or shut it out from society
for its erring behavior.

Existence and Operation:

Whether world public opinion really does exist and operate or not,
there are two different views on it. One is negative and emphatically
denies its exist. The other positive one admits its existence and
effectiveness. Notwithstanding the existence of world public
Opinion, it could not operate as restraint in the following instances,
according to the negative viewpoint supported by Morgenthau.
These instances are the Japanese aggression’s against China in the
thirties, the German foreign policies since 1935, the Italian attack
against Ethopia in 1936, the Russian suppression of the Hungarian
revolution in 1956, Czechoslovakian revolution in 1968 and
intervention in Afghanistan in 1980,China’s annexation of Tibet in
1959, Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in 1990 etc.

Morgenthau has made mention of some developments which give

rise to a myth regarding the existence of world public Opinion
whereas in fact there is no such thing. First is the psychological unity
of the world. Today, all human beings want to have security, liberty,
freedom, peace and order.

These are Some of the minimum set of standards, which all human
beings seek. Morgenthau remarks, “Any violation Of the standards
of this world public opinion, against and by whomever committed,
would call forth spontaneous reactions on the part of
humanity for in view Of the hypothetical similarity of all
conditions, all men would fear that what happens to one group might
happen to any group.”49 But in actual life these set standards have
different meanings in different environments and countries.

Peace, liberty, justice, democracy etc. are interpreted differently by

different nations. An action condemned by one group as immoral
and unjust is appreciated by another as the opposite.
Thus Morgenthau observes, “the contrast between the community
of psychological traits and elemental aspirations, on the one hand,
and the absence of shared experiences, universal moral convictions,
and common political aspirations, on the other, far from providing
evidence for the existence of a world public opinion, rather
demonstrates its impossibility, as humanity is constituted in our
age.”50

Second, in the modern age, the technological unification of the

world has also created an impression of world public Opinion, if it
has not actually created it. A world public Opinion tends to develop
because Of the extension of the radius and rapidity of
communication by inventions in ocean, land and air transportation
and in the press, postal service. telecommunication and satellite
communication system.

Quincy Wright observes, that animals are guided mainly by instinct

primitive man by custom civilized man by conscience and modern
man, in the age of abundant communication by public opinion. With
more and more means of international , communication between
governments and between people, a world public opinion tends to
develop and influence government actions.51 But Morgenthau
points out that even if we lived in a world actually unified by
modern technology with men, news, and ideas moving freely
regardless of national boundaries, we would not have a world public
opinion.52

Third is the barrier of nationalism and national bias. The

particular nationalism, molds and directs the minds of men, that
infused their particular meanings into the good words of democracy,
freedom, security and peace paints them with their particular color
and makes them symbols of their particular aspirations. In such a
situation how world public opinion can exist and Operate
effectively. It is often noticed that the same issue agitates public
mind in many countries but public opinion formed about them in
different countries is not the same. It is mainly due to the national
bias of different peoples. For example, public opinion in various
capitals on lndo-Pak war in 1971 was not similar. The US and China
supported Pakistan whereas the USSR was with India.

But at times on some burning issue different countries of the world

express similar public opinion in one voice albeit national bias and
national conditioning. One such example is of Vietnamese War
when large scale destruction of life and property by US involvement
aroused strong public opinion against the US and ultimately she had
to retreat from Vietnam. These two examples of the Indo-Pak war
and the Vietnam war reveal the ambiguity and the complexity of
world public opinion in certain circumstances as well as its
uniformity in many other ”situations”.

If the issue is very serious and the attitude of a particular power is

clearly unjust and provocative, it does arouse world public opinion
in favor of the victims and influences foreign policies in various
capitals to some extent. Despite the national bias, it would be
incorrect to deny its existence altogether like Morgenthau. It has
played a crucial role in shaping policies in the countries where the
press and other organs of mass media are free compared to those
countries where they are government controlled. After the
introduction of Glasnost (openness) Soviet Union’s foreign policy
has witnessed a notable change.

International Law:
International morality and world public opinion have been discussed
in detail as above. The other limitations on national power such
as international law, balance of power, international
organizations and disarmament are being touched upon here briefly.
International laws are rules that regulate the conduct of nations at
international level. Most nations endeavor to be known in the eyes of
the world as law-abiding nations and in achieving this goal they
accept the obligations of limitation entailed by international law. If
each nation uses its power in unlimited ways against her rivals, the
world society would perish. There would be no peace or stability. It
would be perpetual state of war. To avoid this a code of conduct in
the nature of international law is essential to limit the national
power. Strictly speaking, international law is not a true law as it
suffers from many shortcoming such as the absence of a common
law making, law enforcing or law adjudicating body. Its execution is
dependent upon the will and convenience of the states. The
execution of these laws by consent or use of external force restricts
the scope of use of national power by any state.

The Balance of Power:

The balance of power implies containing power with power. Like
checks and balances in domestic politics, in the Sphere of
international politics also the power of one nation or a group of
nations is used to prevent a particular nation from imposing its will
upon others. When a state has preponderance of power it must be
balanced or checked by the combined power of other states. The
common patterns of balance of power are direct opposition to the
other state with a view to preserving status quo. In the second one,
two nations compete with each other to establish control over the
third nation. The other common methods used to maintain the
balance of power are divide and rule, compensation and acquisitions,
armaments and intervention, alliances and counter alliances and
buffer state formation.

International Organizations:
The coming into existence of international organizations like the
League of Nations and the United Nations has also kept the power of
the states within limits. At present, the member states are expected to
act in accordance with the principles enshrined in UN Charter. It is
correct that the United Nations cannot intervene in the internal
affairs of any state except when they pose a threat to the peace, but it
certainly acts as a check on the unfair and unlimited use of power by
the states and hence is a limitation on power. Chapter VII of the UN
Charter incorporates the theory of collective security which also has
a deterrent effect on the power ambitions of the states. Since its
formation, UN has done remarkable work not only in preserving
peace but also in limiting the ambitions of the super powers.

Disarmament:
Disarmament efforts in and outside the UN have also restricted the
national power. The steps towards disarmament have acquired much
significance in our times. An effort has been made through several
agreements, treaties and conventions to control the use of nuclear
and conventional weapons that have the potentialities to destroy the
entire world. To some extent this also helps in the reduction of
power.

REFERENCES